I have said before with respect to Gould's claim about replaying the tape
that in my Calvinist understanding of things (which I fully believe is
derived from scripture from Genesis to Revelation) that the outcome would
be exactly the same, because God is fully in control of each contingent
step. Gould is wrong! He does not know that there is a God who governs
the process, albeit not necessarily detectable to sinful man whose heart
has been darkened by sin.
Many in modern evangelicalism, and presumably many on this list, would take
exception to this viewpoint. However, in my opinion, this is the only way
that a theistic evolution position can be Biblical. When I refer to God
"using" ordinary meanings, I don't mean to imply that ordinary means are
somehow independent of his sovereign control. No, in one sense, you could
simply say that oridinary means are just a description of God's ordinary
way of governance. I used to tell my classes at Calvin College that God's
involvement in turning water to oxygen and hydrogen in an electrolysis
reaction is just as direct as his involvement in turning water to wine at
the wedding at Cana. We're just used to it and understand its mechanism
somewhat--so in our secularized world we fail to see that God is involved
and claim that the process is autonomous. Now that's not Biblical thinking
at all. Nothing in creation is autonomous--everything is dependent on God
for its very existence, its properties, its behavior, etc.
David's comment that God "uses" tools the way any skilled workman would
makes be a bit nervous. In my way of thinking God sovereignly controls the
tools in a way no human workman ever could. I guess I end up having to say
that God is free to do whatever he wishes in making and governing his
creation. Our task in science in part is to ascertain those regularities
that God freely chose to "employ".
Nowhere do I ever say that the evolutionarily created world does not have a
purpose? Also, the outcome is just what he wanted. God created all things
for his own glory. Talk about a lofty purpose. Man's chief end is to
glorify God and to enjoy him forever. Purpose? Absolutely? Can we see it
when we only look at the physical-chemical-biological processes and seek to
determine God's ordinary providence? Well, maybe not. The coin is flipped
with a 50:50 chance of being heads or tails. Does God know the outcome?
Does God determine the outcome? The sex of a child has a 50:50 chance of
being male or female. Does God know the outcome? Does God determine the
outcome?
Psalm 139:13-16
For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb.
I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are
wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from you when I
was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of
the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me
were written in your book before one of them came to be.
TG
>David Tyler responding to Terry Gray's post of Fri, 11 Dec 1998
>
>> It might be worth noting S.J. Gould's "Full House" monograph (I think it
>> comes out a bit in "Wonderful Life" as well). With respect to the apparent
>> increasing complexity that evolutionary history seems to demonstrate, he
>> points out that there is a wall of minimal complexity and there is only one
>> direction to move from that wall. So one "expects" to see an increase of
>> complexity in the course of history. Like the absence of .400 hitters,
>> increasing complexity is simply a matter of statistics.
>
>As a readable and interesting book, this is THE title I would
>recommend to anyone struggling with the "correct" answer in Art's
>multi-choice question. Gould shows that "progression" is not part of
>evolutionary theory - although people have often read progression
>into the record of past life on earth. According to Gould, life is
>not evolving in any direction, although it has to move away from the
>wall of minimum complexity if it is to evolve at all!
>
>> Of course, none of this appeal to statistics and lack of direction or
>> spontaneous order building implies that God is not in control of the
>> process or not accomplishing his creative purposes through it. It's
>> another example of His "using" ordinary means to accomplish his will.
>
>This is the paragraph where I wish to differ with Terry.
>Philosophically, I regard this as a defensible view. God is in
>control of the processes of nature and working out his purposes using
>these means. However, whilst this is a theistic position, is it a
>Christian position? By Christian, I mean one which draws revelatrion
>from the Bible. Genesis 1 reveals God creating animals and
>plants according to his purpose. Supremely, God creates man. I
>think we can draw from this the conclusion that whatever means God
>used, it was his purpose to bring the different kinds of plants, and
>the different kinds of animals, and mankind, into existence. This is
>where there is a tension with evolutionary theory. There is no
>'direction' to evolutionary change. There is no 'progress'. A
>Creator using Darwinian evolution as the chosen means can have no
>confidence that the outcomes will be as planned. The "tools" do not
>match up to the "design goals".
>
>As you know, Gould makes something of this. Play the "tape" of life
>again, and it would be most unlikely that man would emerge (he says).
>Any skilled workman will pick appropriate tools to do the job. The
>problem that I find with Theistic Evolution/Evolutionary Creationism
>is that the Creator appears to be working with incredibly blunt tools
>- so much so that the outcomes are perceived as a matter of
>contingency by onlookers.
>
>This is why I cannot get excited about the TE position.
>
>Best regards,
>David J. Tyler.
_________________
Terry M. Gray, Ph.D., Computer Support Scientist
Chemistry Department, Colorado State University
Fort Collins, Colorado 80523
grayt@lamar.colostate.edu http://www.chm.colostate.edu/~grayt/
phone: 970-491-7003 fax: 970-491-1801